Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 serve distinctly different workloads, and the recorded specifications make the separation clear. The Intel part, built on Ponte Vecchio silicon, is oriented toward raw parallel throughput with massive shading resources. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16, based on the GH100 Hopper chip, prioritizes memory bandwidth and tensor operations with a more efficient power envelope.

For compute-heavy tasks that scale with shader count and texture throughput, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 holds the advantage. It packs 16,384 shading units, more than 1.6 times the 9,984 shading units found on the NVIDIA part. Its texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s is nearly 2.7 times the 617.8 GTexel/s delivered by the H20 NVL16. The Intel GPU also carries 1,024 texture mapping units versus 312 on the NVIDIA chip, reinforcing its strength in workloads that hammer texture fetch and filtering.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 wins in memory bandwidth and floating-point precision scaling. It delivers 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth from 96 GB of HBM3 memory, compared to 3.28 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e on the Intel card. The bandwidth difference matters for memory-bound inference and large model workloads. Additionally, the NVIDIA part reaches 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 performance using a 2:1 ratio, while the Intel GPU tops out at 52.43 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. That gives the H20 NVL16 a 50.9 percent FP16 advantage, which is significant for AI inference and mixed-precision training loops.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 counters in FP32 compute. It produces 52.43 TFLOPS of single-precision performance versus 39.54 TFLOPS on the NVIDIA chip, a 32.6 percent lead. For scientific simulation and HPC codes that remain in FP32, the Intel part is the stronger option. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 also includes 312 tensor cores, while the Intel specification lists no tensor core count, indicating the NVIDIA accelerator is purpose-built for matrix operations that the Intel GPU would handle through its general-purpose shaders.

Power consumption separates the two further. The Intel card draws 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply, while the NVIDIA part uses 400 W with an 800 W suggested PSU. That 200 W difference translates into a 50 percent higher thermal load for the Intel solution, which has implications for dense server deployments. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 offers more compute per watt in FP16 and memory bandwidth, while the Intel GPU provides more raw FP32 throughput per watt.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel fabricates the Ponte Vecchio chip on its own 10 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm node for the GH100. The Intel die is substantially larger at 1280 mm² versus 814 mm² for NVIDIA, yet the transistor counts tell a different story. Intel packs 100,000 million transistors into its larger die, yielding a density of 78.1M transistors per mm². NVIDIA fits 80,000 million transistors into the smaller die, achieving 98.3M transistors per mm², a 25.9 percent higher density.

Memory architecture diverges significantly. The Intel GPU uses HBM2e with a 8192-bit bus and 128 GB capacity, running at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective speed. The NVIDIA part uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 96 GB capacity, running at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective speed. Despite the narrower bus, the HBM3 technology on NVIDIA delivers higher aggregate bandwidth at 4.03 TB/s. The Intel card offers 33.3 percent more memory capacity, which can be decisive for workloads that need large resident datasets.

Clock behavior differs markedly. The Intel GPU has a base clock of 900 MHz and boosts to 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA chip runs at a 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost, representing substantially higher operating frequencies. Those clocks, combined with the smaller process node, explain why NVIDIA achieves competitive throughput with fewer shading units.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists 312 tensor cores and 24 ROPs, while the Intel specification records 128 ray tracing cores and zero ROPs with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel card has no display outputs, matching the NVIDIA part which also has no display outputs. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces. The Intel GPU comes as an OAM Module, while NVIDIA uses an SXM Module form factor.

The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The NVIDIA part lists no graphics API support at all, confirming its role as a pure compute accelerator rather than a rendering device. The Intel GPU's ray tracing cores suggest some rendering capability, but the zero pixel rate indicates it is not designed for rasterization workloads.

Release timing also separates the products. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 launched on January 9, 2023, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 arrived on September 1, 2025. The Intel part has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, while NVIDIA lists Server Ada as predecessor and Server Blackwell as successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded specifications allow direct comparison across several key metrics. In FP32 throughput, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS against 39.54 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. That represents a 32.6 percent advantage for Intel in single-precision compute, a meaningful margin for simulation codes that do not use mixed precision.

In FP16, the situation reverses. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Intel GPU produces 52.43 TFLOPS at 1:1. The NVIDIA part is 50.8 percent faster in half-precision, a critical metric for deep learning training and inference where FP16 is the dominant precision.

Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 4.03 TB/s versus 3.28 TB/s for Intel, a 22.9 percent advantage. The H20 NVL16 accomplishes this with less memory capacity (96 GB versus 128 GB) and a narrower bus (6144 bit versus 8192 bit), showing the efficiency of HBM3 over HBM2e.

Texture throughput heavily favors Intel. The 1,638.4 GTexel/s rate on the Intel GPU is 165.2 percent higher than the 617.8 GTexel/s on the NVIDIA part. The Intel card has 1,024 TMUs versus 312 on NVIDIA, a 3.3 times difference that explains the texture rate gap. The NVIDIA part counters with a 47.52 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the Intel specification records 0 MPixel/s, indicating no rasterization capability.

Shader resources also favor Intel. The 16,384 shading units on the Intel GPU exceed the 9,984 on NVIDIA by 64.1 percent. The NVIDIA part includes 312 tensor cores, a feature the Intel specification does not list, suggesting the Intel GPU relies on its general-purpose shaders for matrix operations rather than dedicated tensor hardware.

Power efficiency shows a split. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 within a 400 W TDP, yielding approximately 0.20 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel GPU delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP16 within 600 W, yielding approximately 0.09 TFLOPS per watt. In FP32, the NVIDIA part produces 39.54 TFLOPS at 400 W, about 0.10 TFLOPS per watt, while Intel produces 52.43 TFLOPS at 600 W, about 0.09 TFLOPS per watt. The NVIDIA chip is more efficient in both precisions, with the largest gap in FP16.

Form factor differences matter for system integration. The Intel GPU uses an OAM Module slot, while NVIDIA uses SXM. Both require PCIe 5.0 x16 host interfaces. The Intel card's 600 W TDP demands more robust cooling and power delivery compared to the 400 W NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 32.6 percent higher than the 39.54 TFLOPS produced by the NVIDIA H20 NVL16.

Q: Which GPU offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 provides 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth from its 96 GB HBM3 memory. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 offers 3.28 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e memory, making the NVIDIA part 22.9 percent faster in bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has a 600 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1000 W. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has a 400 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 800 W.

Q: Does either GPU support display outputs?

A: Neither GPU has display outputs. Both the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 are listed with no display output capability.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units, which is 64.1 percent more than the 9,984 shading units found on the NVIDIA H20 NVL16.

Q: What memory types do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses HBM2e memory with a 8192-bit bus. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses HBM3 memory with a 6144-bit bus.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct deployment profiles. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the choice for FP32-heavy HPC workloads, texture-intensive processing, and applications that benefit from a 128 GB memory footprint. Its 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32, 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 16,384 shading units make it a strong candidate for scientific simulation and general compute. The 600 W TDP and OAM form factor require appropriate infrastructure but deliver the highest single-precision throughput in this comparison.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is better suited for AI inference and mixed-precision training. Its 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16, 4.03 TB/s of memory bandwidth, and 312 tensor cores provide a 50.8 percent FP16 advantage over the Intel part. The 400 W TDP makes it more attractive for dense deployments where power density is a constraint. The 96 GB HBM3 memory is smaller than Intel's 128 GB but faster, which benefits workloads that stream data rather than hold large resident models.

Both accelerators are active production parts and occupy the same performance percentile against all GPUs in the database. Neither has benchmark scores recorded, so the comparison rests entirely on architectural specifications. The release dates differ by more than two years, with Intel arriving January 2023 and NVIDIA September 2025.

For organizations running FP32 simulation codes, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers more compute per card. For organizations running FP16 AI workloads, the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers more throughput at lower power. The 200 W TDP difference and the tensor core presence on NVIDIA reinforce that the two cards target adjacent but distinct segments of the accelerator market. The Intel card maximizes general-purpose throughput; the NVIDIA card maximizes precision-scaled throughput with dedicated matrix hardware.